EMPIRE TOTAL WAR DEMO

Rome: total war wasn't turn based...

why'd they change it?

Eh...don't think i'll be getting this. Don't feel like spending a few hundred dollars to run one game for my computer, and i'm not really a big fan of "old" warfare. I would much prefer either modern or future combat.

anyway, still looks like a fun game, but doesn't seem like my game.

I much prefer 'old' warfare in this type of game. I'm worried that the amplitude of guns will completely destroy my entire knowledge of the combat system.

If I can't run it... I'll probably end up upgrading my PC just for it; but I suppose that opens up new possibilities too.

MEDIEVAL: Total War 2 has got to be my favourite game.

BB wrote:Rome: total war wasn't turn based...

why'd they change it?

Rome: Total War had a turn based campaign map from which you entered into real-time battles, just like Empire.

To be honest, I initially disliked the time period as well. However, now that I've really looked into all the factions, it's becoming more and more of a great idea in my mind.

The whole "Imperial" era seems to have had more balanced, powerful nations than any time period in the past. The whole idea of diplomacy seems to fit in better in the more modern era than it does in ancient, barbaric times.

I'm gonna be Prussia. I shall form a strong alliance with poland, and conquer/imperialize regions in North Africa. When the Americans (hopefully) rebel against the British, I will come to their aid, swiftly destroying the waves of British Red Coats. I will then bring the fight back to Europe, crushing the British homelands with my soldiers while their forces are out at sea.

In this process, I will have neutralized Great Brittain. After my work is done, I will sail my ships back to the Americas, and extinguish the disobedient Colonists.

I think I'll be the Swedes.

They don't have the Irish,(because they were under British control at this time) they obviously don't have American Indians, I'm not being the British, and I don't exactly acknowledge my small sliver of German ethnicity I have.

CivBase wrote:

Dud Doodoo wrote:First of all, we had a very in depth look at how the game worked, we already knew how it played and what it was like. Try describing TW for me, and I'll take it back.

You saw some videos from E3 '08 and most of you left before the UNSC page was even made.

Total War is a turn-based (something I'm not big on with RTS games), squad-based game (once again, not big on it) with a more interactive view on the battlefield rather than a birds-eye view (something else I'm not fond of) set in a 1700's time period. It is mostly about the conquest for new colonies (I'm guessing mostly the Americas), and revolves around expanding your 'empire'.

Not my favorite type of game. But hey, most of you hate Battlezone II and I think it's epic. What difference is this game? Just because I don't love it doesn't mean I'm a poor judge of games.

Dud Doodoo wrote:And we shouldn't we be able to tell you how to judge games? It is a failure...

Care to explain why? I happen to enjoy the gameplay very much.

You pretty much proved my point.

First of all, of course you are not a big fan of turn based strategy in RTS games, because RTS is real time strategy! Empire Total War however, has both, an overall world domination map (think of it as a REALLY complex risk) and huge, intense, real time tactical battles with very good graphics. It is not mostly about anything, just world domination. Some of the factions have colonies while others don't, and the open ended campaign map takes place in Europe, India, and America, not just the Americas, and it is hardly based on colonization.(although it is certainly a factor in the game)

Second, the ones that left were ones that spent 24/7 on the forums and following the game. We had been reading TONS of articles on the game and doubts were building long before e3 08. After E3 rolled around, we knew the gameplay style of the game, the way you "build" the base and the mechanics for combat. On top of that, we knew that the game looked ugly as hell, and that it had virtually NO depth or room for innovative strategy anywhere in the game.

The only reason I would play the game is because being the next halo game, my friends will be playing it. It is one of the few times all of my friends will be playing an RTS(if you can call it that)

And allow me to correct you, TW is not a squad based game, it is a platoon based game, meaning that you will be controlling HUNDREDS of men in each unit. On top of that, it IS a birds eye view game, you just have more freedom with the camera, even zoom right in to look at the faces of your individual units. (which are very detailed BTW) However, most people spend 80% of their time looking down on the battle from a birds eye view.

Please learn what you're talking about before you judge games.

ReconToaster wrote:

BB wrote:Rome: total war wasn't turn based...

why'd they change it?

Rome: Total War had a turn based campaign map from which you entered into real-time battles, just like Empire.

To be honest, I initially disliked the time period as well. However, now that I've really looked into all the factions, it's becoming more and more of a great idea in my mind.

The whole "Imperial" era seems to have had more balanced, powerful nations than any time period in the past. The whole idea of diplomacy seems to fit in better in the more modern era than it does in ancient, barbaric times.

I'm gonna be Prussia. I shall form a strong alliance with poland, and conquer/imperialize regions in North Africa. When the Americans (hopefully) rebel against the British, I will come to their aid, swiftly destroying the waves of British Red Coats. I will then bring the fight back to Europe, crushing the British homelands with my soldiers while their forces are out at sea.

In this process, I will have neutralized Great Brittain. After my work is done, I will sail my ships back to the Americas, and extinguish the disobedient Colonists.

You always talk about us as the "whiny(sp?) colonists, yet you're in love with the soviets. Do you seriously know your history at all? At least our revolution turned out the way we wanted it too...

And before Civ trys to say that we didn't play HaloWars before judging it:

We had been watching it, looking at every screenshot, demo, playtime, new unit, builds, EVERYTHING for about two or three years. We did not have to play it to know it was not going to come out good.


You have not looked this game up at all or actually played it yet so you can not compare the two.

You're making a huge deal out of

CivBase wrote:Honestly, I don't think the game looks all that great though.

No, I'm making a huge deal that you admit you haven't really even played the demo of the game, you hardly know what it's about, hell, you even got the genre wrong. Yet, you say you don't think the game looks that great and it isn't for you. THAT is why I am so dissapointed with you.

Dud Doodoo wrote:No, I'm making a huge deal that you admit you haven't really even played the demo of the game, you hardly know what it's about, hell, you even got the genre wrong. Yet, you say you don't think the game looks that great and it isn't for you. THAT is why I am so dissapointed with you.

Honestly, I didn't know turn-based strategy games were even in their own genre, I thought they were still classified as RTS (kinda obvious, though, now that I look at it).

Tell you what, I'll play the demo a little more and give you my opinion on it. I did some cleanup on my computer, so it might work a little faster this time.

Civ wrote:The game still isn't very good IMO

THAT is what we're responding too. Your opinions have grown far less severe over the course of this thread.

Dud wrote:You always talk about us as the "whiny(sp?) colonists, yet you're in love with the soviets. Do you seriously know your history at all? At least our revolution turned out the way we wanted it too...

Ouch. Don't jump on me like that.

From the perspective of a leader of an Empire, I'm sure the colonists did seem like a bunch of whiny peasants. I would say the British government was obviously oppressive, but I can also sympathize with their side of things. Their taxing of us "unfairly" can be somewhat justified by the costs of the French and Indian war, though they certainly could have handled it in a much more "sensitive" way.

As for the Soviets... I'm intrigued and fascinated by the Soviet Union... not the Soviet people. I'm interested in the Communist leaders... not the worthless wheat farmers. The Soviet leaders were not a bunch of angry serfs, they were just the next generation of men to take advantage of those people. Also, they shot the first man up into space... and they have a cool national anthem.

According to new information, the US could have done that long before the SU, but waited to keep the SU happy, and not potentially make the Cold War hot.

ReconToaster wrote:

Civ wrote:The game still isn't very good IMO

THAT is what we're responding too. Your opinions have grown far less severe over the course of this thread.

I quoted the original thing that dud responded on.

I actually didn't mean it like I said it, there. I meant it doesn't look epic, just a regular game that I wouldn't really go out of my way to buy. Sorry for my rather poor choice of words.

Well, I still can't get the game to work, but I've played these types of games before.

They're fun.

That's my two cents.

ReconToaster wrote:

Civ wrote:The game still isn't very good IMO

THAT is what we're responding too. Your opinions have grown far less severe over the course of this thread.

Dud wrote:You always talk about us as the "whiny(sp?) colonists, yet you're in love with the soviets. Do you seriously know your history at all? At least our revolution turned out the way we wanted it too...

Ouch. Don't jump on me like that.

From the perspective of a leader of an Empire, I'm sure the colonists did seem like a bunch of whiny peasants. I would say the British government was obviously oppressive, but I can also sympathize with their side of things. Their taxing of us "unfairly" can be somewhat justified by the costs of the French and Indian war, though they certainly could have handled it in a much more "sensitive" way.

As for the Soviets... I'm intrigued and fascinated by the Soviet Union... not the Soviet people. I'm interested in the Communist leaders... not the worthless wheat farmers. The Soviet leaders were not a bunch of angry serfs, they were just the next generation of men to take advantage of those people. Also, they shot the first man up into space... and they have a cool national anthem.

I didn't mean to jump on you, I was just making a point. Also, we did achieved much harder things in space first.

Dud Doodoo wrote: we did achieved much harder things in space first.

Allegedly

Oh not this shit again...

I was just reading through an interview about the improvements to the campaign map, and the dreaded word 'accessible' seems to be showing up more than a lot...

Please, please don't let them dumb down this game so that everything from taxes to buildings only exists in one panel... How can you have an empire without micromanagement? It's a player's attention to detail that separates the kings from the peasants!!

Well... I played the game again, but this time it ran 10x as fast. My opinion on the game really hasn't changed very much. It's not a game I would go out of my way to get. It's okay... but I'd rather sit down and play a game of Risk.

Civ wrote:Well... I played the game again, but this time it ran 10x as fast. My opinion on the game really hasn't changed very much. It's not a game I would go out of my way to get. It's okay... but I'd rather sit down and play a game of Risk.

Again, the demo does not even touch on the greatest part of the game, and the part that you would spend the most time doing. I'm not having any fun with the demo either.

Cheese wrote:I was just reading through an interview about the improvements to the campaign map, and the dreaded word 'accessible' seems to be showing up more than a lot...

I've heard some of that stuff too. It seems, however, that they've really only cut back on some of the things that were just out of the way, like having so many different units for spying, assasinating, and diplomacy.

Micromanagement is what makes the game, and I'm praying that there will be a lot more diplomacy and trade strategy.

ReconToaster wrote:

Cheese wrote:I was just reading through an interview about the improvements to the campaign map, and the dreaded word 'accessible' seems to be showing up more than a lot...

I've heard some of that stuff too. It seems, however, that they've really only cut back on some of the things that were just out of the way, like having so many different units for spying, assasinating, and diplomacy.

Micromanagement is what makes the game, and I'm praying that there will be a lot more diplomacy and trade strategy.

I've read into it a bit more, and it looks to be ok. All they were doing is trying to reduce the number of clicks players were making without actually changing the game, which is a good idea in my books. I'm still a little annoyed by the cutbacks on spies, diplomats and assassins though. I hardly used the latter, but they were still cool. I wonder what will become of priests. Anybody know about religion in this game? (I wonder if i can still bribe the pope...)

From what I've heard, diplomacy and trade strategy will be the biggest change to the map. It's gonna be awesome.

ReconToaster wrote:

Civ wrote:Well... I played the game again, but this time it ran 10x as fast. My opinion on the game really hasn't changed very much. It's not a game I would go out of my way to get. It's okay... but I'd rather sit down and play a game of Risk.

Again, the demo does not even touch on the greatest part of the game, and the part that you would spend the most time doing. I'm not having any fun with the demo either.

Is there more? It may be worth it if there is something more... supposing that something is really fun like Galactic Conquest on Battlefront or the Conquest on Axis and Allies. Neither of those games were truly great, but the conquest games made them awesome.

CivBase wrote:

ReconToaster wrote:

Civ wrote:Well... I played the game again, but this time it ran 10x as fast. My opinion on the game really hasn't changed very much. It's not a game I would go out of my way to get. It's okay... but I'd rather sit down and play a game of Risk.

Again, the demo does not even touch on the greatest part of the game, and the part that you would spend the most time doing. I'm not having any fun with the demo either.

Is there more? It may be worth it if there is something more... supposing that something is really fun like Galactic Conquest on Battlefront or the Conquest on Axis and Allies. Neither of those games were truly great, but the conquest games made them awesome.

First of all, yes, the campaign map IS the game. The real time battles are second to none in RTS, but only because they focus on the tactics while the main part of the game focuses on the overall strategy. The game is WAY more in depth than the ones you mentioned, it isn't even fair to compare them.

You really don't know ANYTHING about the game, and this just shows you have hardly even read our descriptions. The campaign map is turn based world domination, where you build up your cities, economy, and armies. Every time you enter a battle though, it turns into very intense tactical battles with very good graphics. Everything you do on the battlefield reflects on the campaign map, even the direction you retreat in.

Civ doesn't know about the campaign map? >.>

I didn't say the game was bad at all. I didn't say that those games were better than Total War, in fact, I said the games were bad without the conquest games. I'm not comparing it to them at all. In fact, I said that I might love the game if there is something more to it like a conquest deal.

You really don't know ANYTHING about the game, and this just shows you have hardly even read our descriptions. The campaign map is turn based world domination, where you build up your cities, economy, and armies. Every time you enter a battle though, it turns into very intense tactical battles with very good graphics. Everything you do on the battlefield reflects on the campaign map, even the direction you retreat in.

No, I didn't read what you guys said because, frankly, I didn't care being as at the time my computer wouldn't even run the demo, much less the full game.



Now, stop trying to insult me in every one of you responses when I've said nothing wrong. People are allowed to have opinions.

Angatar wrote:Civ doesn't know about the campaign map? >.>

No I don't, as I've only played the tutorials. I haven't had time to play anything else.